Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Atama

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Atama

Final (87/10/5); Closed by Rlevse at 23:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Atama (talk · contribs) – Dear fellow editors, today I want to suggest we give the mop to Atama. Atama is a civil and experienced user who is with this project for almost exactly 3 years now. His main area of expertise is deletion, especially proposed deletion , which he approaches in a clueful manner, checking the candidate pages and trying to improve them whenever possible. His deletion work is impressive, not only with PROD but also with only two AFDs he submitted being kept against his suggestion and both of them were more than a year ago and many good and elaborate comments on a number of AFDs. Atama also works as a volunteer for the mediation cabal and on the COI noticeboard, both of which he has shown to be a dedicated, civil and helpful user which many users honored with a variety of barnstars that can be seen on his user page.

As I know that some people look for it, I am going to be honest: Atama has no awards for article creation (DYK, GA, FA etc.) and his edit count seems to be low in the article namespace which some people look for. Still, I believe he has proven that he knows how to write articles with his many improvements of current articles while doing the aforementioned PROD patrolling. Also, he has more than 2000 deleted contributions (due to his deletion work), almost all of which are in the article namespace. Admins need to know how difficult it can be to create content so they can assess content disputes and similar aspects of adminship adequatly. Despite his lack of GAs, FAs or DYKs, I think Atama has proven his knowledge in the article writing area through quality contributions to and fixing of existing articles as well as through his actions with the MedCab where he also deals with content issues often.

So, if you want a civil and patient admin who has demonstrated cluefulness, policy knowledge and skills as a mediator, I hope you can agree that Atama is a great choice for it. :-) Regards SoWhy 21:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the nomination and your kind words, I accept. -- Atama頭 22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I've been a proposed deletion patroller for quite some time now, and I have a process I use for determining whether or not such articles should be deleted (you can see on my user page what I do). With the tools I'd like to help by reviewing and deleting expired prods. I have interest in closing AfDs and helping with backlogs at AIV and UAA but I'd like to ease myself into those roles as I get more experience with the tools.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I haven't done any extensive expansion of articles, as noted above. I've made a lot of contributions to iPhone and World of Warcraft, though neither article has reached GA quite yet. I created Hottrix from scratch and have rescued a few articles from deletion by getting them up to acceptable stubs. The work I'm most proud of, however, is helping other editors at the conflict of interest noticeboard and informal mediation, as well as at other noticeboards or article talk pages. I'm also proud of my work to help administrators with proposed deletions as a patroller.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I've been in a number of conflicts, both as an editor and of course as a mediator I've volunteered to help with such conflicts. They don't usually cause too much stress, maybe I'm just lucky that way. I suppose the worst I've had was at Talk:World of Warcraft#Guinness line proposed change (and the discussion just after that section) where an editor was getting under my skin (which doesn't happen often). I dealt with it by trying to keep cool and eventually just staying out of the discussion when it started to get heated (and spilled over to Wikiquette alerts). In general, though, I've learned that except for extreme cases if you treat other editors with respect you'll get along, even when you disagree.

Additional optional question from JamieS93

4. Would you be willing to delete a page on-sight that did not strictly fall under the criteria for speedy deletion? If so, under what circumstances? Also, when do you think personal judgement should be exercised as an occasional replacement to strict policy adherence? I would like to know your global, and specific if possible, thoughts on the subject.

A: I can't imagine any situation that would demand immediate deletion that isn't already covered by CSD. The worst example I can think of would be an attack page, but that is covered by G10. If I felt that a page needed deletion for something not mentioned at the speedy deletion policy, I'd ask for assistance from a more experienced administrator first.

As to the other part of the question, my opinions about "Ignore All Rules" has changed over time. Initially I thought that IAR was "stupid" and contradicted itself (shouldn't the rule to ignore rules be ignored itself?) But I've come to not only accept it, but try to keep it in mind at all times. All policies should be based on what is common sense and what's best for the encyclopedia, and so of course any time a policy doesn't make sense in the way it's applied, or in a particular situation, it should be ignored in place of better judgment. I have also applied IAR in a different manner, when I've felt that there are common sense reasons for a decision that just aren't covered by rules. For example, if you have a block of text in an article that may or may not violate WP:BLP (the source is questionable and implies criticism but isn't blatant about it), but at the same time just doesn't seem that important and seems "awkward" in the article, just forget the BLP considerations and delete it as being better for the article. You're not "ignoring" the rules, but you're using common sense to transcend them, in a sense.

Additional optional questions from Coldplay Expert

5. Would you advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an admin?

A: I would, if I felt an alternate account was necessary. I currently have only one alternate account, which is now retired, JoeKole. It was created as part of the WP:NEWT project, and after a week I retired the account (that's all the time the project required). I emailed ArbCom to inform them of the account while I was still using it. Explanation of what I did with the account is here.

6. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A: A ban is a restriction on how and/or where a person can edit the encyclopedia (or whether they can edit it at all), and is a social decision usually enacted either through a community consensus or an Arbitration Committee decision (they can also be enacted by an administrator as a discretionary sanction). A block is a technical limitation that will actually prevent a person from editing the encyclopedia. Violating a ban will usually lead to a block, although an editor banned from Wikipedia itself is generally blocked at the same time. Bans and blocks are meant to prevent disruption, not punish a person for doing something wrong.

7. What are cooldown blocks and when should they be used?

A: Cooldown blocks are blocks designed to prevent a person from editing until they have "calmed down". In theory this would prevent disruption when an editor is actively causing problems while in an emotional state. In practice, a block will only serve to further inflame a person's emotions, and should never be used. (It's the equivalent of yelling at someone to calm down, which never actually works.)

Additional optional questions from Coffee

8. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A. As I said above, I don't plan on closing AfDs any time soon, and I'd certainly try not to close difficult ones to begin with. If I was evaluating an AfD for a BLP, and there wasn't much participation in the discussion I would try to relist it in order to get an input from more people to form a consensus. If there seemed to be enough discussion that a relisting isn't necessary, I would try to determine whether or not the article subject had requested its deletion, and if so I would probably delete the article per that person's wishes. Otherwise, I would close the AfD as "no consensus" which would mean that the article is kept.

9. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A. The current BLP policy is a good one and one I take pains to follow. To protect Wikipedia's integrity and just out of basic human decency, we really should take care when creating and editing articles about living people. Most of the time I see negative controversy stirred up in the media about Wikipedia, it stems from one problem or another in a BLP, and Wikipedia does have the potential to harm people if misused. There have been times when I've spoken with people who are the subjects of articles on Wikipedia, and it is a relief that I can reassure them that Wikipedia has strong rules in regards to BLP articles.

Some early work I've done with a BLP article can be seen at Dana Ullman. You can get an idea of what I did at Talk:Dana Ullman#Dana Ullman as a source and the sections after. This was a touchy article because the subject of the article was an active editor at the time, and was participating in the article discussion; the article was (and still is) also under a general sanction applied to homeopathy articles. I helped form a compromise regarding the use of sources at the article, which satisfied Ullman's defenders, retractors, and Ullman himself. (Ullman later thanked me personally for that.) That was long before I started helping out at the COI noticeboard or the Mediation Cabal, but I think that experience helped pique my interest in both subjects. I've also been working on the Aryan Khan BLP, which was an article I "rescued" from proposed deletion, but I've been finding it very difficult to verify information with reliable sources for an Afghan entertainer and that has inhibited my development of the article. Those are just a couple of examples of work I've done on BLPs, I'm sure I've worked on many others.

Additional optional question from Epeefleche

10. What is your opinion of the Admin Recall proposals here?

A. I support a formal recall process, I've felt for some time that there should be something other than a voluntary recall or arbitration required. On initial review, I liked both options 1, 4, and 11, as they use a mirror of the RfA process, and that's a logical way to go about things (if the process can allow the community to promote, it should be able to demote the same way). On a second review, I don't like how easily options 1 and 11 can be initiated, which might make them easier to abuse. By elimination, I'd support option 4. (In fact, I've now done so.)

Additional optional question from RegentsPark

11. A number of editors have expressed concern about the WP:NEWT project. Ignoring, for the moment, what you expect the benefits of the project to be, could you describe what, in your opinion, are the negative ramifications of the process described at the top of the project page?

A. The most unfortunate ramification, which looks to have already happened in a few cases, is to discourage new page patrollers. I empathize greatly with people who fulfill that role; it's not unlike the PROD patrolling that I do, except much more stressful, and while one of the goals of the project is to explore how new editors might be driven away from the encyclopedia, it's not worth it to make the encyclopedia more "newbie friendly" if we drive away established and productive editors in the process. Another potential ramification that I've seen concern about is the fact that the project has generated low-quality articles, but the point was supposed to be creating articles about good subjects that have potential to be valuable additions to the encyclopedia. I haven't actually seen an article from that project with a subject that doesn't merit inclusion if expanded, but it's possible that someone will create an article with no potential, which of course is not helpful to the encyclopedia.

Additional optional question from Þjóðólfr

12. (Briefly!) what are the three best things and what are the three worst things about Wikipedia?

A: The single best thing about Wikipedia, to me, would probably include (of course) the wealth of information available. Aside from that, Wikipedia's insistence on verification to keep the information as accurate as possible, and allowing anyone to contribute to articles helps the encyclopedia continue to grow. The worst things about Wikipedia to me would include the difficulties in keeping that information accurate due to the same policy of openness (either through vandalism or good-faith poor edits), the ability of people to return to the encyclopedia once banned, and the difficulty in attracting and keeping subject experts.

General comments

• Links for Atama: Atama (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Atama can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Atama before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted to talk page. JamieS93 23:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that at this point I should explain about my participation in WP:NEWT, because over the course of this RfA both my actions and intentions seem to be misconstrued. I was first made aware of the project (toward the beginning of November) from a message left on another editor's talk page, which simply said something along the lines of "You've been a participant in NEWT." When I visited the project page, I saw it as an attempt to gather data about new editor experiences with speedy deletions, and try to use that information to improve the experience of new editors. At the time there was a lively and thoughtful discussion on the talk page of the project, and a number of participants and a good amount of data collected, and since I have long had an interest in helping new editors I thought I should give it a try. At the time there was no controversy about it and I didn't suspect there would be (in that I definitely made a mistake).

I created an alternate account, and informed ArbCom about it by email (and received a thanks for the disclosure). I then set about creating an article that I had planned to create for some time, I'd already located sources for it and felt that it merited inclusion. A few days later I created another article that I had considered creating. Since I'd been hoping to become more active in article creation, I thought this was a convenient time to do so. I planned to properly expand the articles after the 7 day waiting period for each was over.

After the time period had passed, I posted my experiences as others did before me. I took care not to name names, and I said that while I felt that mistakes were made by a couple of editors and that I came away from the experience agreeing that something should be changed with the way that new editors are treated, I didn't attack the editors who I'd encountered and tried to stress that I didn't feel that what they had done was terrible in any way. Never did I intend to "entrap" anyone, or try to paint administrators or new page patrollers in a negative light (I tried to make that clear in my report as well). Any implication that I did so is something I regret and apologize for.

I believe that I should be held accountable for the actions I take, and I can't fault anyone for opposing me because of them. I only wanted it to be made clear what those specific actions were. If I had found this project perhaps a week later, and seen the negative reaction it eventually received, I would certainly have avoided it. I can definitely be blamed for a lack of foresight in this matter. But I never intended any harm against anyone and I feel that I tried to be cautious of this, as I always try to be. Thank you. -- Atama頭 09:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Summary -- If you had known that an action would be unpopular to some you wouldn't have taken it. I don't care about that. You demonstrated poor judgement. You played games and created a lousy article to "improve" the experience of new editors without the respect to take a look around and read some very basic material first. Rather than improving the encyclopedia, you deliberately put stuff in it that made it worse, and treated hard working and committed editors who trouble to pile through mountains of garbage like lab rats. You seem chastened over the "umpopularity" of the act, and don't seem to understand why it was wrong. Your very recent display of poor judgement is the problem to some.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel this is an unfair summary to draw, and I do not think that at any point Atama was playing games, or intending to make the project worse off. On the contrary, I believe Atama was acting with the interests of the project at heart. Whilst the methodology used by NEWT may be inappropriate, and a mistake, I do not like the way that editors who joined in in good faith are being smeared for it because of a few incidents. Wikipedia is a community project, we are a community and we improve each others works, and help each other by correcting each others mistakes and giving advice. Atama's edit history shows they have clue in this respect. I stand by my support as large net positive to the project, Atama made a mistake and admitted it. If we are requiring administrators to have perfect judgement and perfect knowledge, then no one is suitable. --Taelus (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there an official or consensus judgment regarding the NEWT project anywhere? If it's going to be cited as a reason for opposing this nomination then complete details of its legitimacy as a project should be available. Without that all I see is a candidate making a novel proactive effort to improve Wikipedia rather than one shooting down and discouraging every possible idea aimed at improvement. One would have thought Wikipedia's strength is its dynamism, yet a couple months here and I see the ideals behind WP:IAR and WP:BOLD being forgotten at every turn because of the possibility of bruised egos. For every article he may have questionably created, how may did he help in deleting properly? Lambanog (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is no consensus either way as to the validity of the project. I don't believe it was actually proposed to the community at any point; if it was, perhaps someone would have pointed out the potential for disruption and ethical issues. You're presenting a false dilemma (and also making some rather offensive implications) by suggesting that the only 2 options available are to participate in NEWT or "shooting down and discouraging every possible idea." So far NEWT has not proven anything that we didn't already know. We know pages are deleted inappropriately and we know newbies get bitten (we've known that since at least 2003). IAR only applies if it improves the project. Creating unsourced BLPs and other poorly made articles and discouraging established users while violating ethical experimentation standards in order to prove something that we've known for years does not improve the project. The articles that he may have helped properly delete in the past are not relevant. He would have done that regardless of his participation in NEWT. But such participation, including the apparent contradiction in his answer to Q9 wrt BLP, is an example of poor judgment, and a very recent one at that. Mr.Z-man 18:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Oh, you're not not already? Gotta remedy that oversight.... SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Strictly from his interaction on Talk:World of Warcraft, I trust his knowledge of policy and his ability to cope with the tasks that adminship would set on him. --Izno (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Sure. From what I've seen, Atama will be a great admin! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   Reaffirming support based on the answer to my question (not perfect, but introspective enough :)) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

4. Easy support. -SpacemanSpiff 23:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Absolutely. Sole Soul (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - I certainly don't see any reason not to give you the mop. Good luck! Smithers (Talk) 00:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - From what i have read over the last two hours of Atama's contributions, he is the ideal admin. Cheers! delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 00:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Support. I can see no objections! —Finn Casey * 01:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Support - seen you around a lot, fixing things and commenting in discussions. No reason to doubt your judgement, and I especially like the answer to question 4.  7  02:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Support I thought you were one already. I guess I was wrong. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
11. Support I can trust this candidate with the tools after reviewing their contributions. ArcAngel (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
13. Support per the answers to my questions--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
14. Support - Great user! Airplaneman ^talk 02:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
15. Double edit-conflict Support Clearly highly qualified for adminship. Surprise he's not an admin is a cliché. The cliché is not true, because I had been contemplating nominating him for adminship. Because, well, I thought he was an admin already...and...oh, wait... IronGargoyle (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
16. Support - Good answers to my questions, I think you'll make a good administrator. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Some people are just quick learners and dive right in! Good luck A8UDI 03:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
18. Support - Very impressed by the answer to question 4, will make a great admin. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 03:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
19. Yep, seen him around, no major issues. I've got no reason to believe they'd misuse the bit. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
20. Support I thought this editor was an admin already. I am 100% support. I've seen them around and they clearly have policy knowledge and can be trusted with the tools.--TParis00ap (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

    Support You seem great Mr.Snoppy (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

    Indenting vote of indefinitely blocked user. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

21. <insert standard expression of surprise that Atama is not an admin here> Tim Song (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
22. Support. Has a good head, 頭. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
23. Support. Thoughtful, intelligent candidate.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
24. Support. Have noticed excellent attitude at WP:COIN and more. Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

    Support, exercises good judgment from reviewing a slice of edits, shows clear thoughtfulness and deliberation from the answers to the questions, what more can you ask for? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Changed to oppose. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

25. Support Looks good, don't see anything that makes me think the tools will be misused. Davewild (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
26. Support as nominator. Regards SoWhy 10:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
27. Support per good work at WP:COI/N. JohnCD (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Everything seems to be in order. Warrah (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Pleasure to add my support for this fine candidate Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
30. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
31. Support Definately. --AtheWeatherman 15:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
32. Support per SoWhy ϢereSpielChequers 15:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
33. Strong Support Trustworthy editor, great answers, will be an awesome admin. I have encountered this editor numerous times before and have always been impressed. RP459 (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
34. Support -- Impressed by his work at WP:COIN. I was hoping he would apply for adminship. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
35. Strong Support Your assistance at WP:COIN has been great, it would be very useful to have an admin checking the noticeboard more often! Smartse (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
36. Support G'luck! Ray^Talk 18:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

    Support (moved to neutral) good editor, seen him everywhere. No problems here. And thank you for your efforts at WP:COIN. JamieS93 18:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

    Support This editor Gets It. Auntie E. 18:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Withhdrawing. Just discovered the NEWT project today, and I'm not a big fan of sting ops. Auntie E. 23:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

37. Support Great work at the COI noticeboard. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
38. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
39. Looks good. Malinaccier (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
40. Support I've often seen this user doing good work.   Will Beback  talk  03:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
41. Support I have seen exemplary behavior in terms of controlling personal bias and dialing with trolls. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 05:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

    Support Apropos WP:NEWT: I was acting much like a newbie, and got my head chopped off like in the some of the NEWT cases. Atama dealt with the situation skillfully, as I noted on his talk page. (Even though I don't agree with his decision to propose no action with respect to unrepentant repeat violations of policy as I raised at AN/I, I still support.) --98.248.113.11 (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

42. Support, an excellent candidate. --Taelus (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Good luck!--Pookeo9 (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
44. Support I see no problems, good case where editcountis needs to be avoided. Willing to be bold and try to improve the Wikipedia experience for new editors is a big plus. Royalbroil 17:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
45. Strong support. Of course. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
46. Support - like some others, I thought you already had the mop! I've come across the candidate a few times, and they seem level-headed, and I believe that they will make good use of the mop. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
47. Support, not a huge fan a WP:NEWT but I have previously grilled the candidate thoroughly and find him to be in possession of a refined pallete, an acceptable taste in music, and entirely free of any delusions of being a sandwich. And a pretty good editor to boot. Icewedge (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
48. Strong support per nom. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
49. Support - have seen some very good work and careful thought by this editor at WP:COI - good mop-wielding qualities on show there. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
50. Support--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
51. Support - a hard working editor with a substantial contribution record and a rigorous attention to detail. Euryalus (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
52. Support. Thought he was already. -- œ^™ 10:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
53. Support an excellent candidate. Jakew (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
54. Total beenfit to the project, adding the mop will only enhance that. GedUK  10:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
55. Support - Although don't lose sight of the fact we are here to build an encyclopedia. More edits to articles would be a plus, but I'll support anyway since there seems to be a net benefit here. Cocytus [»talk«] 14:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
56. Support All my interactions with Atama have been positive, and reviewing his edits, everything there is good. LK (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
57. Strong Support: An ideal candidate - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
58. Support - Whenever I see him about he's Doing the Right Thing. Crafty (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

    Would you mind explaining how he was doing the right thing when he created this unsourced BLP for a marginally notable non-public person? Mr.Z-man 21:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

    Or Mitchell Muncy, which already had unsourced negative statements in it. Hipocrite (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

    Where are the negative statements here (which is the article when I created it, and my only contribution to it)? I see that you properly removed an unsourced negative statement from the article, but that didn't come from me. -- Atama頭 21:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

    You don't think that you bear any measure of moral responsibility for creating the article? Hipocrite (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

    Of course not. Nobody should be held responsible for what happens to an article after they create it. I've said before that I plan to expand the article later, and I would have cleaned that out myself had I noticed it. You'll see here where I opposed what I saw as unsourced original research which suggested that Muncy's article about Banned Books Week equated to controversy. If I opposed it then, why would I support it now, especially in a BLP? But going back to your question, I don't own the article or any other article and can't be held accountable for what other editors add to it. -- Atama頭 21:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

59. Support Atama is, overall, an excellent candidate. I'm impressed with his answer to Q4, as well as his work as a proposed deletion patroller and at WP:COIN. I deeply oppose WP:NEWT for the many reasons stated here and elsewhere, but that's not community consensus. Therefore, I think opposing Atama on that basis would be inappropriate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
60. Thought he was an admin already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
61.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Atama.— Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
62. Support First person to attempt my question. Þjóðólfr (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
63. Support No one is perfect. We need good, competent admins for many kinds of work. Edit count "low" means the editor doesn't yack as much as (say) I do... and this is bad? I haven't been able to support every edit, but then... I can't support all MY edits after I read them again later. I understand the desire to have every admin be an excellent editor in every way but I don't find this to be a reason to say no either. The NEWT thing seems off, but not fatal. Competent editor willing to do important specific work. If our trust is misplaced we'll see it.- Sinneed 21:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
64. Support. Candidate appears to be a good and reasonable editor willing to work in an underserved area of the project, to their credit. The NEWT thing is the only issue that kept this from being a Strong Support, as it's off-putting in general. But the candidate's discussion of the issue, above and below in the opposes, is enough for me to overlook that glaring pot of drama. Good luck. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
65. Support Andrea105 (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
66. Aye - apart from WP:NEWT, this editor is doing The Right Thing^TM wherever I see him/her, even when I disagree. Strong support. Black Kite 01:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
67. Support Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
68. Support Looks good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
69. Support. I think that the editors who have drawn attention to NEWT have done the community a service by shining a light on it. However, this is an RfA on Atama, not an RfC on NEWT. I looked carefully at Atama's report on NEWT and have thought about it carefully, and what I see is a user who was actually very careful about not pointing fingers at the editors involved in tagging the Chatters page etc., and who treated them very considerately. Some of the complaints about harm done strike me as factually untrue. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
70. Support - I have seen this user do a great job in mediation and and been helpful in discussions. Reubzz (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
71. Support - Yeah NEWT was a bad idea. It wasn't Atama's idea. I see no reason to refuse the bit here. Gigs (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
72. Support per consistently good contributions, and thoughtful participation in discussions. I have missed feelings about NEWT myself, but we should not discourage good-faith innovations, even if their flaws become apparent in hindsight - as long as the right lessons are drawn from the attempt. Abecedare (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
73. Support, for warming my heart with many {{Prod-2}}s over the years. Abductive (reasoning) 08:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
74. Support Good work at COIN and mediation. --JN466 09:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
75. Support To unite all Wikipedians with meditation.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 13:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
76. Support NEWT stuff seems fine (I don't see it a BLP issue here as topics meet WP:N.) Other opposes equally unworrying. Hobit (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
77. Support I don't want to oppose based on NEWT. Everything else is strong and he already has an experience on a Cabal -- Mediation. (However There Is No Cabal)... Valley2city^‽ 16:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
78. Support. Seems like a level-headed candidate. And NEWT seems like a laudable attempt to try to make WP a more welcoming place for newbies. It's an urgent issue with many WP user metrics now in decline, and the candidate should be credited for caring enough to try to address the problem. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
79. Support, per participation in WP:NEWT. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC).
80. Support - a good editor who should have the tools. I don't agree that the NEWT project was WP:POINTy; it didn't disrupt Wikipedia, and if anything helped to improve it. Robofish (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
81. Support. Understands policy, cares about newbies. rspεεr (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
82. Support Yep. --Katerenka (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
83. Support Great user! Btilm 05:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
84. Support Seems willing to be creative...Modernist (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
85. Support: How could I oppose, when your actions were apparently already refined toward those of an admin sliding around the crowd and making sure everyone's having a good time at their party. Seems many other were also fooled! Even on NEWT where I loudly grumbled for a few days, I know your actions were in good faith with all intentions of improving the community. I must also respect your contributions being in areas of low fame and proof that good candidates shouldn't need to show a list of article awards at the door. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
86. Support. An experienced editor who clearly and accurately explains policy issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
87. Support. Was impressed at his decorum and patience at Talk:Jon Butcher; further research of contributions reveals no red flags. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I think my, and others concerns are enough to move to the oppose column (most of my comment moved from below, as noted). I sincerely like the editor, but RfAs have been denied on much less. WP:NEWT is controversial, and I think unknown to most of the community. This isn't the place to discuss the relative merits of that project (although I imagine it is headed for a community wide discussion), but I cannot support a new admin that has participated in that project in this way. Atama, to his[/her?] credit, has been reflective about it. But there's also too much zeal to pushing a particular vision of CSD. Reasonable people can disagree on csd in practice, but the nature of this project makes the sysop bit bother me. Shadowjams (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   I'm a him, I do mention that on my user page. :) -- Atama頭 17:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   Expanding on my point, part of my objection is based on the fact that a WP:NEWT patroller has no new page patrol edits to his name. That and there's virtually no TW or HG patrolling. Vandalism patrolling, and NPP is a vital part of the project, and relies heavily on admins. Admins ought to have some knowledge of these areas. If there's no experience there, then why need the mop? Shadowjams (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   There are other areas the mop is needed, aren't there? Atama is a PROD patroller (an area often neglected unfortunately) and as such he naturally has neither automated edits nor patrolled edits (since the pages are already patrolled at that time). But to work at PROD more effectively, he still needs a mop. And working at WP:COIN can require it as well to handle disputes (protecting pages under dispute, blocking vandalizing COI-editors etc.). So I fail to see the requirement for NPP experience for adminship. Regards SoWhy 12:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   I also recollect reporting editors to WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:SPI on a number of occasions, as well as using WP:RFPP a couple of times. I'm not at all new to conflict with vandals, socks, POV-pushers, etc. I haven't dived into it like the NPP folks, though I've considered giving it a try and might do so sometime. So far I've just reported disruption as I've come across it, rather than seeking it out. I was even recently targeted in a sockpuppet investigation myself (as retaliation for reporting the reporter as a sockpuppet). Needless to say, the CU on me came out clean but the CU against the other person didn't. -- Atama頭 01:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

2. The NEWT program is really just advanced trolling for many, but whatever. Atama's NEWT account, however, made iffy bios of questionably notable living people. This is not acceptable behavior, regardless of whatever breaching experiment is being conducted at the moment. Hipocrite (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Hipocrite. I'm willing to AGF that Atama is simply unfamiliar with the concept of research ethics (in particular, the idea that you don't conduct experiments on non-consenting people), but creating unsourced BLPs for marginally notable non-public figures, known only for one event is just completely inappropriate. From reading some of the related discussions, I'm also not sure that Atama understands that notability is not inherited. Mr.Z-man 17:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Amazingly, per Hypocrite. Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point that was already proven was bad enough, but creating bios that met the one event criteria? I think that is simply not appropriate. We have enough problems, without established editors causing more, and making hassle for our new page patrollers who are very valuable. Majorly talk 20:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   I didn't want to question anyone's opposition, especially where NEWT is concerned because I completely understand the controversy. But just to point out, I only used the Kennewick Man connection in the Chatters article because it was what he was most known for, and to protect it from A7 deletion. It's not the only notability claim. This LA Times article about an archaeological site in Hanford, Washington is another (though weaker) claim, as is this local paper talking about another dig, or this article which is almost totally about Chatters and unrelated to Kennewick Man. I could go on, but I understand WP:BLP1E quite well and the assumptions being made aren't true. -- Atama頭 20:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   With the possible exception of the last one, none of those are about Chatters, they merely interview him as the director of the dig they're interested in. None of them appear to meet the "significant coverage" requirement for notability - he's a source for the article, not a subject of it. Additionally, the wording of the initial revision of your article should not have protected it from deletion. As I noted, notability is not inherited. "Helping" to discover something notable does not make one notable. The article didn't say how he helped; there may have been hundreds of people involved, they all aren't notable. Mr.Z-man 21:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   As to Chatters' involvement with Kennewick man, according to the London Times, James Chatters is the "only specialist who studied him in any detail". This is a discussion that would better take place at an AfD, not here. My point is that this isn't a clear-cut case of a non-notable figure. If you feel my judgment in these matters is lacking, then by all means oppose me, I respect your right to do so. -- Atama頭 21:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   And I believe our point is that making yet another bio about a questionably notable living person as a part of a questionable breaching experiment is conduct unbecoming. Hipocrite (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   It goes beyond judgment. The idea that an established editor would so flagrantly disregard the BLP policy for an "experiment" is just baffling to me. Then less than a week later you say "we really should take care when creating and editing articles about living people." That just looks like a major contradiction to me. Mr.Z-man 21:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose game playing with socks to create crappy articles... why? Out of greater concern for "new" users who can't be arsed to learn how to write an article before they put a lousy article in Wikipedia? Doesn't have the right priorities.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
6. NEWT Dlohcierekim 23:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Bali ultimate and Hipocrite. MuZemike 03:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose, like Aunt Entropy, just learned of the NEWT bit, and I don't think we do things through sting operations. This is an unacceptable method and participation does not show good judgment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose - the breaching experiment that is WP:NEWT has done damage to Wikipedia. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 10:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose per Hipocrite. While I disagree with WP:NEWT I generally wouldn't had opposed just for that, but creating crappy BLPs for such testing is unacceptable.--Staberinde (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral Seems very knowledgeable about the project. However, my concern lies in the fact that Atama has 6,900 edits with 4,700 of them live. I know this user has partaken in numerous other RfA's accounting for some of those edits. Seems a tad low, no? A8UDI 03:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Move to support

While that may seem low to some people's standards, the fact that this candidate has over 2,000 deleted edits tells me that they do a lot of work in the CSD area, and so they seem to have a solid grasp of that area. On this candidate, it's not about QUANTITY -- but QUALITY. ArcAngel (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral While I respect the work that Atama has done, I have some very strong reservations on the whole WP:NEWT project. I'll need to think about this for a bit. We start some major dramaz over "sock" issues, and yet here is a project that encourages a "behind the back" style of editing that I simply can not feel comfortable with. There are a great many participants that I greatly respect, but I think it is a very ill advised attempt to prove a wp:point. That we often are too bitey isn't the question, I wholly agree on that, hence my attention to Julian Colton's project. The issue for me is the whole "sneaky" aspect of it that actually led to an apology (and I do commend Atama for taking that step.) Sorry, I just can't offer my support at this time. — Ched :  ?  07:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

   May I ask how this is JulianColton's project? The initiator was WereSpielChequers. Airplaneman ^talk 02:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral - I second Ched's comments. WP:NEWT is controversial, and I think unknown to most of the community. This isn't the place to discuss the relative merits of that project (although I imagine it is headed for a community wide discussion), but I cannot support a new admin that has participated in that project in this way. Atama, to his[/her?] credit, has been reflective about it. But there's also too much zeal to pushing a particular vision of CSD. Reasonable people can disagree on csd in practice, but the nature of this project makes the sysop bit bother me. Shadowjams (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Move to oppose, above.

   Neutral leaning oppose. Processes are designed to help the encyclopedia, not protect editors who make the encyclopedia worse. I don't trust the candidate to apply WP:POINT appropriately, but opposing at this point is just getting run over. Hipocrite (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

2. I'm very worried about baiting at WP:NEWT. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral. While his deletion work is superb, I cannot this candidate based upon his lack of any good or featured material, his relatively low edit count, and, especially, the whole WP:NEWT thing, which I feel is just wrong. Laurinavicius (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Edits are great, but too low of an edit count for me.  IShadowed  ✰  02:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral (moved from support). Atama is a good candidate for adminship in many ways, and I wish I could support. The questionable BLPs created using the NEWT account was quite poor judgement, however. I'm not particularly opposed to promotion, especially due to the otherwise positive factors present, but I feel the need to withdraw my support. This request will likely pass, so please take these comments into consideration, and learn a lesson from it. Best, JamieS93 22:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.